The Barbarians: Warfare, weapons, history, culture

[Lord Baal]

However you must remember that it can be effective with other supporting arms in the army. It was adopted again in the late middle ages because the heavy cavalry and men at arms to support its flanks and try to attack the enemy flanks existed. The demise of the hellenistic phalanx is linked to the demise of cavalry and light infantry in hellenistic armies.

It's a universal lesson true in every aspect of life, overspecialization and excess of homogeneity is a receipt for disaster when flexibility is needed. And few places demand flexibility in such a unforgivable way as a battlefield. And to all, there's no need for insults. I'm actually having a nice time here, with a open mind I'm sure all you can have a nice time too.

[Sir. Cunningham]

I haven't played Shogun Total War, but I have heard that in that game swordsman always easily beat spearment. I'm pretty sure that's the source of this part of your historical knowledge and it's a very poor source indeed. Although that happens in Shogun Total War that is not what happens in real life.

I have a feeling you're the one who's been playing a few too many games here, not me.

Medieval Pikeman dominated the battlefield and there are many examples, in Switzerland and the Netherlands especially, of militia pikemen defeating much better armoured foot swordsmen. Medieval warfare eventually became about who could muster the most pikemen because frontally they defeated everything, and medieval armies had much better non-pikemen soldiers than the hellenes to protect or attack the flanks (namely, armoured men-at-arms).

Incorrect. Pikemen were used in mass to counter the dominance of the cavalry of this period. And they never did well against swordsmen, infact mercenary swordsmen were recruited specifically to devastate formations of pike. That you aren't even aware of this last fact speaks volumes.

Some spear formations have no distinct advantage over swordsmen. Thureophoroi is the current name for spear armed hellenistic soldiers in a loose formation like the swordsmen or Rome or Gaul. I can't imagine they had any advantage over the swordsmen (although the longer the weapon the better). Such units are extremely flexible as their formation is easier to command and control, and cohesion is much easier to maintain even while running at speed.

Take the same spearmen and put them in a much tighter formation and you get a spear phalanx. All other things being equal, this formation has a distinct advantage in frontal combat against the last, looser formation, the one used by the Roman swordsmen. In this formation a spear is a lot more effective than a sword because it can be used overhanded. This formation is difficult to control as their is very limited room for movement. So it's more vulnerable to flanking than the pervious formation and cannot flank the enemy as well. The Romans successfully exploited its weaknesses to defeat it again and again, they did not throw their men into a frontal attack against it, that would be suicide. The soldiers fighting it frontally were there to hold it in place, not destroy it, something they were incapable of.

Give the above formation Pikes and they become kings of the battlefield. From the front they can mince both cavalry and infantry. Obviously if they found it hard to move around before, it becomes much harder with hundreds of pikes threading between men and keeping them in place, in addition to countless comrades pressing up all around them. But used in conjunction with effective flank protection, pike phalanxes are the ultimate meleé formation.

However you must remember that it can be effective with other supporting arms in the army. It was adopted again in the late middle ages because the heavy cavalry and men at arms to support its flanks and try to attack the enemy flanks existed. The demise of the hellenistic phalanx is linked to the demise of cavalry and light infantry in hellenistic armies.

So much misinformation I don't even wanna waste time on it.

[Sir. Cunningham]

A Tercio was composed of Pikemen, Swordsmen and Musketmen. A full pikemen formation would be destroyed/routed by swordsmen.

You might as-well spare yourself the trouble, some people will never listen...

[removeduser_4536284751384]

A Tercio was composed of Pikemen, Swordsmen and Musketmen. A full pikemen formation would be destroyed/routed by swordsmen.

Sources? The Rolederos were abolished for being ineffective.

Incorrect. Pikemen were used in mass to counter the dominance of the cavalry of this period. And they never did well against swordsmen, infact mercenary swordsmen were recruited specifically to devastate formations of pike. That you aren't even aware of this last fact speaks volumes.

Dude, I've spent hours reading about the Italian Wars, the 30 years war, Swiss invasions, the Dutch rebellion and other late medieval wars, and I cannot think of one battle where any army had more than a small number of swordsmen, yet all armies had a HUGE number of pikemen. What the hell are you talking about?

At Pavia the French had quite a lot of heavily armoured men at arms were defeated by Imperial pike and Spanish shot. That's the most sword heavy army I can think of at the time.

[Anna_Gein]

So now we go on a controversy about the tercio.
But your video show why the swordsmen weren't the uber killer of a pikemen formation.
There is a reason all these soldiers equipped with sword simply don't charge their enemies.

Sir.Cunningham after Agincourt the England, French and Burgundian army all fought mainly on foot. Don't know about the Imperial Army but surely it haven't go unnoticed.
And please don't act as if I was declaring an universal rule. (exactly what you are doing)

[Barristan Selmy]

Sources? The Rolederos were abolished for being ineffective.

Dude, I've spent hours reading about the Italian Wars, the 30 years war, Swiss invasions, the Dutch rebellion and other late medieval wars, and I cannot think of one battle where any army had more than a small number of swordsmen, yet all armies had a HUGE number of pikemen. What the hell are you talking about?

At Pavia the French had quite a lot of heavily armoured men at arms were defeated by Imperial pike and Spanish shot. That's the most sword heavy army I can think of at the time.

Do not confuse ineffective with vunerable, they were disbanded because their vulnerabilities outmatched their strenghts ( highly vulnerable to cavalry), but its accepted they were ussed with great effectiveness against pikeman and to break deadlocks on pike pushes.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Yes, certainly. They would break deadlocks in pike pushes by flanking, something they were better at that big Pike squares. But they would have absolutely no hope attacking a Pike square frontally.

[Lord Baal]

As Barristan Selmy, the Spanish used those men to break the deadlock of the push of pike. But they were very vulnerable to attack by cavalry and of course against a frontal assault on a pike formation. They were proven pretty effective at the Battle of Ravenna, but also suck hard in the Battle of Seminara.

So no, they were not employed on frontal assaults against walls of pikes. They where used to kill the pikemen when they where already engaged with another pikemen. Also apparently they where used on ships as heavy marines of some sort. The majority of Cortes guys where Rodeleros.

[Sir. Cunningham]

Sources? The Rolederos were abolished for being ineffective.

Dude, I've spent hours reading about the Italian Wars, the 30 years war, Swiss invasions, the Dutch rebellion and other late medieval wars, and I cannot think of one battle where any army had more than a small number of swordsmen, yet all armies had a HUGE number of pikemen. What the hell are you talking about?

At Pavia the French had quite a lot of heavily armoured men at arms were defeated by Imperial pike and Spanish shot. That's the most sword heavy army I can think of at the time.

"Dude" you need to read more then.

Ofcourse there were few dedicated swordsmen by the time of the renaissance, they were no match for cavalry which was everywhere at this point in history, and guns were beginning to take over. The very fact they were there however should give you a clue as to why: They had a specific purpose! Even the renowned Swiss had them.

Furthermore the sword kept on being used, even by pikemen as they were needed it for infantry vs infantry melee fighting.

The pike had one main purpose, to protect against cavalry, that was it.

But really, comparing renaissance pike formations with the ancient phalanx is completely ridiculous, the equipment and tactics were entirely different.

[Anna_Gein]

Again you are ignoring the fact that most army fought on foot the time when pike became common.
Burgundian Wars. The renowned Swiss face an infantry. Not an all cavalry army.

[Sir. Cunningham]

As Barristan Selmy, the Spanish used those men to break the deadlock of the push of pike. But they were very vulnerable to attack by cavalry and of course against a frontal assault on a pike formation. They were proven pretty effective at the Battle of Ravenna, but also suck hard in the Battle of Seminara.

So no, they were not employed on frontal assaults against walls of pikes. They where used to kill the pikemen when they where already engaged with another pikemen. Also apparently they where used on ships as heavy marines of some sort. The majority of Cortes guys where Rodeleros.

No ofcourse they were not used alone in frontal assaults, and that because they had no shields with which to fix the points of the spears/pikes. The situation was very different earlier in history however where shields were a typical piece of equipment on the battlefield, which makes all the difference.

[Barristan Selmy]

Again you are ignoring the fact that most army fought on foot the time when pike became common.
Burgundian Wars. The renowned Swiss face an infantry. Not an all cavalry army.

[Anna_Gein]

So now everyone agree that swordsmen won't necessary butcher pikemen or spearmen on frontal assault.

PS : what have happen to you Barristan Selmy. Surely you can offer a dissertation about the Burgundian Army of Charles the Bold.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

"Dude" you need to read more then.

You are giving no specific counter examples I see?

Ofcourse there were few dedicated swordsmen by the time of the renaissance, they were no match for cavalry which was everywhere at this point in history, and guns were beginning to take over. The very fact they were there however should give you a clue as to why: They had a specific purpose! Even the renowned Swiss had them.

Their purpose was to protect the flanks of the pikemen against flanking forces, be they infantry or cavalry. I can imagine armoured men at arms on foot would reasonably be a match for medium cavalry such a demi lancers or reiters, even if gendarme type super heavy cavalry would eat them.

The pike had one main purpose, to protect against cavalry, that was it.

The pikemen had a far more diverse role than that. The pikemen were the the main infantry combatants who were to hold most of the enemy army in place while flankers attacked their rear. The role of foot and horse men at arms was to flank the enemy pikemen and prevent their own pikemen from being flanked. Of course battles were a lot more complex that but that's the gist of it.

It's a universal lesson true in every aspect of life, overspecialization and excess of homogeneity is a receipt for disaster when flexibility is needed.

Yes, and as you point out that is why the Romans won. But my point was that if this need for flexibility can be eliminated by other specialized troops fulfilling other tasks, then pikemen can thrive in their niche.

And to all, there's no need for insults. I'm actually having a nice time here, with a open mind I'm sure all you can have a nice time too.

I'm very sorry if you have percieved any of my posts as insults, I don't mean to offend anybody. And yes for some reason I very much enjoy arguing with fan boys.

[Sir. Cunningham]

So now everyone agree that swordsmen won't necessary butcher pikemen or spearmen on frontal assault.

No, but if the swordsmen don't have shields with which to fix the points of the spears/pikes, then no ofcourse they wont necessarily win a head on assault. Otherwise, yes they will, and decisively so as history have shown us time and again.

[Barristan Selmy]

So now everyone agree that swordsmen won't necessary butcher pikemen or spearmen on frontal assault.

PS : what have happen to you Barristan Selmy. Surely you can offer a dissertation about the Burgundian Army of Charles the Bold.

Are we talking about the same Burgundian Army of Charles the Bold, that after Morat was roughly 50% Infantry / 50% Cavalry + A lot of Artillery?

[removeduser_4536284751384]

No, but if the swordsmen don't have shields with which to fix the points of the spears/pikes, then no ofcourse they wont win a head on assault. Otherwise, yes they will, and decisively so as history have shown us time and again.

could you offer two examples of swordsmen defeating pike squares from the front then, if it has happened time and time again?

[Anna_Gein]

Are we talking about the same Burgundian Army of Charles the Bold, that after Morat was roughly 50% Infantry / 50% Cavalry + A lot of Artillery?

sorry I didn't read they had 50% of cavalry.
Perhaps you are including the soldiers who come on horse but dismount before the start of the battle.
Burgundian lances and all. At least we are talking about the same army.

No, but if the swordsmen don't have shields with which to fix the points of the spears/pikes, then no ofcourse they wont necessarily win a head on assault. Otherwise, yes they will, and decisively so as history have shown us time and again.

So Europeans Armies were dumb enough to prefer two-handed swords against pikemen instead of the sword/shield ?
You really confuse me. Could you provide more example of swordsmen defeating pikemen on frontal assault ?

[Sir. Cunningham]

Their purpose was to protect the flanks of the pikemen against flanking forces, be they infantry or cavalry. I can imagine armoured men at arms on foot would reasonably be a match for medium cavalry such a demi lancers or reiters, even if gendarme type super heavy cavalry would eat them.

Are you kidding me ?! Swordsmen for protecting the flanks ? The cavalry would've had a field day!

You clearly need to read up on the tactics used, such as the Spanish square, because swordsmen certainly were NOT used to cover the flanks, they were used to cut into enemy pike formations and break the deadlock, and this from head on by advancing from in between their own pikemen.


I suggest you read the words of Niccolo Machiavelli:

Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince Chapter 26

"And although the Swiss and the Spanish infantry are each esteemed formidable, there are yet defects in both, by reason of which troops trained on a different system might not merely withstand them, but be certain of defeating them. For the Spaniards cannot resist cavalry and the Swiss will give way before infantry if they find them as resolute as themselves at close quarters. Whence it has been seen, and may be seen again, that the Spaniards cannot sustain the onset of the French men-at-arms and that the Swiss are broken by the Spanish foot. And although of this last we have no complete instance, we have yet an indication of it in the battle of Ravenna, where the Spanish infantry confronted the German companies who have the same discipline as the Swiss; on which occasion the Spaniards by their agility and with the aid of their bucklers forced their way under the pikes, and stood ready to close with the Germans, who were no longer in a position to defend themselves; and had they not been charged by cavalry, they must have put the Germans to utter rout."

[Sir. Cunningham]

So Europeans Armies were dumb enough to prefer two-handed swords against pikemen instead of the sword/shield ?
You really confuse me. Could you provide more example of swordsmen defeating pikemen on frontal assault ?

It has nothing to do with being dumb, times were changing and cavalry was a constant threat on the battlefield, against which pure swordsmen were easy prey. Furthermore it was the Germans who prefered the two handed sword to break up pike formations, the Spanish prefered to use the sword & buckler approach, which was proven to work extremely well, despite the buckler being a very small shield.